Cal Am water supply plan draws fire

Two members of an advisory committee tasked with reviewing California American Water's new water supply project are criticizing the proposal.

George Riley and Roger Dolan, members of the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority's technical advisory committee, issued memos this week outlining what they see as deficiencies with the project. Among their concerns, they said, are limited public involvement, Cal Am's decision to ignore a county ordinance and court ruling, and issues with water rights, brine disposal and the scope of environmental review.

Riley said the committee's findings could ultimately encourage Cal Am to make changes.

The committee is scheduled to review the project at its next meeting, set for 2 p.m. Monday at Seaside City Hall.

In an application filed with the Public Utilities Commission two weeks ago, Cal Am proposed a three-pronged approach to its new Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project: a self-owned desalination plant north of Marina combined with aquifer storage and recovery and groundwater replenishment sources. The project is intended to provide a replacement water supply to offset a state-ordered cutback in pumping from the Carmel River by the end of 2016.

The water authority, which consists of all six Peninsula city mayors, has charged itself with evaluating Cal Am's proposal and presenting a unified front during the public review process.

Riley said he hopes the water authority will take an active role in vetting the project and proposing potential remedies for myriad issues.

"I don't know what the (authority) will do, but I'm taking them at their word that they want to speak with one voice, and that means they need to hammer out some compromises," said Riley, a water activist. "So far it's just been public meetings and public comment, no decisions, no policy, no direction. We need a follow-up process leading toward a decision. We need more structure. There are too many problems adding up faster than the sense of progress."

Lack of input alleged

At the core of Riley's concerns is what he calls the lack of "open public input and related transparency." The proposal includes no public governance structure or local representation, no public partner or plans for one, no access to less expensive public agency financing and no ownership stake in the desal plant for the ratepayers who will be paying for the entire proposal, Riley wrote in his memo.

Cal Am, in seeking to build, own and operate the desal plant, is going up against a Monterey County ordinance that requires the plants be publicly owned. Cal Am officials have argued the ordinance doesn't apply to the company because it is exclusively regulated by the PUC, whose general counsel agrees.

Riley said Cal Am's decision to challenge the ordinance flaunts years of established precedent with no public discussion, sends a confusing message to the business community and provides the company an unfair advantage over competing desal proposals.

"Cal Am has chosen to proceed without a public hearing and to override local laws," Riley said. "I just think that's a problem."

Though Cal Am isn't seeking a public agency partner for the desal plant, spokeswoman Catherine Bowie noted that the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency are participating in aspects of the project that could provide nearly half the proposed water supply.

Review targeted

Both Riley and Dolan were critical of Cal Am's reliance on a supplemental environmental review for the project that expands on the EIR for the previous regional desalination project. The EIR was invalidated by a Monterey County Superior Court judge.

Dolan said the supplemental review has a limited scope that ignores several issues included in the judge's ruling.

Riley lamented that Cal Am's proposal doesn't include evaluation of alternative desal proposals, such as the People's Desal Project and DeepWater Desal in Moss Landing.

Bowie said the PUC, as the lead agency under state environmental law, would decide how Cal Am should proceed with the project's environmental review.

She noted that public vetting has just begun under the auspices of the PUC, which will consider issuing a use permit for the project through an extensive review. Under Cal Am's proposed schedule, the PUC would begin public participation hearings in July and issue a final decision by February.

"We're at the beginning of a very robust public process," said Bowie, who pointed out that the company had included the public in both a January stakeholder meeting and a subsequent workshop. "I would say to characterize this as not public is premature."

Number of concerns

In his memo, Riley said Cal Am assumes "sole discretion" over the supplemental projects backed by the public agencies involved with the proposal, meaning the company could decide essentially on its own to proceed with a larger desal plant.

Dolan, an engineer who has recently become involved in local water issues, listed concerns with the project's proposed slant wells and their potential for drawing too much fresh water. He was also concerned about the proposed use of the Water Pollution Control Agency's outfall line for brine disposal when the Marina Coast Water District has claimed exclusive use rights.

Bowie said Cal Am will decide in "consultation" with the water management district and pollution control agency on the readiness of the supplemental source projects, and is committed to making sure they work.

Bowie said Cal Am modeling has shown the slant wells would use a small enough percentage of groundwater to offset concerns about water rights, and there are plans for test wells to confirm that analysis. Cal Am's study also shows sufficient outfall capacity and includes contingency plans, she said.

As for financing, Bowie said Cal Am is pursuing low-interest state loans for the project and expects to be able to finance it at 3.5 to 4 percent interest, competitive with any public agency.

The bottom line, she said, is Cal Am has determined this is the best option available to meet the 2016 deadline in the wake of the failed regional desal project.

"We have to remember the partnership with public agencies was unable to go forward and we still have the deadline, and the way this proposal is structured we believe is the best way to beat the deadline," Bowie said.